I think that the theory, arguments and evidence presented by Dr. Eugene McCarthy offer the most compelling alternative to the mainstream explanation for both the origin of species (Neo-Darwinism) and the origin of humans:

How does evolution occur? — That is, what natural processes bring new types of organisms into being? Expressed more technically, one might ask, what are the genetic processes that have produced the various forms scientists recognize and assign scientific names? This is the question considered in this book. Certainly, there is a great mass of literature already available on this topic. But my own, more than 20-year investigation of that literature has convinced me that certain widely accepted claims about the nature of evolutionary processes represent little more than unsubstantiated dogma, as unsupported by replicable experiment as the events described in Genesis.

For the last 150 years, we biologists have been defending a fortress built by Charles Darwin. We have spent our energies hurling back the assaults of the Creationist infidels and shoring up a slowly crumbling foundation that once seemed based on the hard bedrock of direct observation. But an ocean of data, accumulating since 1859, has been slowly lapping away at the rotting stone beneath Darwin’s castle, undermining its moldering walls, making it an ever more dangerous place to reside.

Dr. McCarthy, PhD in genetics at the University of Georgia who spent nearly twenty years in the department studying and teaching biology and genetics, has put forward the theory that the origin of new species is the result of hybridization (or "cross breeding") between two different species. Here is a PDF version of his theory: http://www.macroevolution.net/support-f ... f_life.pdf

Dr. McCarthy calls his theory "stabilization theory", as it involves the gradual stabilization of new forms of life that are created when two different species successfully produce fertile offspring:

As for the origin of the human species, according to Dr. McCarthy's theory it's true that we are closely related to the Chimpanzee - specifically the bonobo chimpanzee - but our "other parent" may surprise you (or not):

Hard to accept? Perhaps. Don't let that prevent you from giving the theory a fair shake - I think the care and effort that Dr. McCarthy has gone to to present his theory and the evidence supporting it is commendable, and warrants consideration. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, his website is humorous and contains many poignant quotes that I quite enjoyed. I feel Dr. McCarthy is a kindred spirit - someone who has begrudgingly held up the lens of scrutiny to an erroneous mainstream narrative and found the evidence unsatisfactory, and who has consequently taken it upon himself to ferret out the truth and share his findings with the world. Sound familiar?

Back to the original proposed neo-darwinian alternative theory, i.e. "Aquatic Ape", here is Dr. McCarthy's critique of that theory:

If you're unsatisfied with the arguably unscientific explanation for the origin of species offered by the mainstream, I would strongly encourage you to give Dr. McCarthy's website a perusal. I find his theory far more compelling than neo-Darwinism, "Aquatic Ape", Creationism, anything involving the "Anunaki", or anything else that I have come across. Perhaps you will as well.

Thank you for bringing up this topic, even if you have brought it up in such a bizarre way.

I am making it a topic generally about evolution and its flaws; hopefully so we can occasionally tuck discussions of epigenetics, morphic resonance and/or other ideas that add to or subtract from modern concepts of "survival of the fittest".

I would like to remind us all that we have a great deal of work to do in the realm of media fakery, however, and this topic may not get (or really deserve) much love on CluesForum yet. Until, perhaps, to nonohocapito's horror CluesForum fucks a paranormal science web site and we get some pertinaciously cute offspring discussion.

This looks interesting and I will check out the site and try to put together some feedback because I am interested in this topic and I think it is a major psyop in and of itself, so still belongs on the forum.

Ultimately, the question of origins goes right back to the first life. This can't be explained by evolution or hybridisation because both require reproducing organisms to occur.

You can´t extract something bigger (more complex) from something smaller (less complex) no matter how many units you have or how much you mix them. If that´s difficult to understand, let me flesh it out: Crossbreeding a kick scooter with a pogo ball will not produce an Airbus 380.

Rather than "survival of the fittest", which infers a superiority of a species over its predecessor, I think the theory has always been about what individuals are "most adapted" to what environment. To appreciate the difference, we just have to think that, under certain conditions, "evolution" could mean creatures becoming less complex or less "intelligent", because there is a selection against complexity or intelligence. This has probably happened on this planet, and will happen again.

Personally, I find the idea that creatures adapt to the environment to the point of differentiating one from the other acceptable. Give or take this or that specific case which I am not qualified to judge.

The idea that this differentiation could also be the result of interbreeding between species doesn't strike me as super convincing but also doesn't bother me, once again because I am not in the position to judge whether this is really the case or that it really has relevance. It seems a little less equipped, though, to explain why there are creatures adapted to the most miraculous and harsh conditions on the planet, something that natural selection instead explains quite well.

One of the difficulties in the debate is the use and meaning of the word evolution. If we take evolution to mean change over time, then no-one doubts evolution occurs. Natural selection can be observed and truly occurs, creating modifications to organisms, but this does not mean change from one species into another. That form of evolution has not been observed but evolutionists often claim that the evidence for natural selection proves it is the origin of all species. I hope that paragraph was clear.

The biggest thing any origin theory has to account for is the existence of information in nature, specifically the information encoded in DNA. The function of DNA in the cell is the same as that of software in a computer system, only many, many times greater than any information processing system any human has ever devised. Each feature of an organism, like a wing or an eye or whatever, needs information to describe it's structure, function, development, even its eventual decay is programmed in somehow. So where does all this information come from? Do mutations create information? This has never been observed. There is no materialist theory that can account for all this information. Information exists independent of it's medium, it's not a function or outcome of any natural law or process. In human experience, information is generated only by intelligence, so it is more logical to believe the universe originated by an intelligence rather than by a materialistic process.

Here I'm really making he same point as Flabbergasted. Mutations and crossbreeding with natural selection may lead to changes, but it's just the re-arrangement of whats already there. It doesn't create any new information or features, it just modifies existing traits. Any account of origins has to explain an enormous amount of meaningful information that exists separately from its medium. There is no sufficient material explanation, and so far, from everything we do know about nature, there never will be.

nonhocapito wrote:[...] "evolution" could mean creatures becoming less complex or less "intelligent", because there is a selection against complexity or intelligence. I am sure this has happened in the story of this planet, and will happen again.

Yes, there are rare cases (such as sickle-cell disease) in which the loss of genetic information has been an advantage.

nonhocapito wrote:Who knows, eventually the way of mating for such a cowed creature could differ so much from that of our ancestors that we might not be able to interbreed anymore.

That´s pretty far out, nonho!

nonhocapito wrote:But creatures become bigger and smarter all the time: they only need to have more resources and more time to invest them.

Resources (whatever you mean by that) and time are quantities. Complexity is quality, it´s concept, it´s engineering. Carrots do not turn into cucumbers, even if you put a hundred million of them together, expose them to cold, heat and volcanic ash and wait till the end of the Holocene.

There is a lot of confusion about what is adaptation (reversible adjustment to temporary circumstances, of which all species are capable) and what is evolution (introduction of new information into the genome).

Swimming in the ocean or learning clever tricks adds no new information to the genome. The offspring of a group of swimming monkeys will not have membranes between their toes, nor is there any known mechanism by which the environmental cue (e.g., the desirability of swimming) will increase the likelihood of a useful mutation. If there were, it would be shouted day and night from the rooftops of the establishment.

Also, there is a lot of confusion about what is an individual and what is a species. "Evolutionary change" (i.e., the appearance of new genetic information capable of building biological systems) affects only one individual at a time. So how is the new design implemented at the level of the species? How does an accidental change in the circuit of your private lawnmower make its way into the assembly instructions at Husqvarna?

Repeating myself (sorry), here is how the NDT explains it:

1. a random mutation occurs in the genome of a single individual, completely unrelated to the creature’s needs or challenges offered by the environment (hence “random”)2. If said mutation coincidentally favors survival in whatever direction, the mutation-carrying individual may be “naturally selected”.3. Said individual must reach sexual maturity and reproduce successfully, passing on the mutated gene.4. The mutation-carrying offspring must become prevalent in the population to the point of superseding all non-mutation-carrying individuals.5. Then we sit down and wait for the next random mutation to occur (since it is random, it is not likely to build on the preceding mutation)

One must be hard pressed for a materialistic explanation of life to adopt the NDT!(the above is a general observation; I know you are not an advocate of the NDT, nonho)

dblitz » April 17th, 2017, 11:41 am wrote:One of the difficulties in the debate is the use and meaning of the word evolution. If we take evolution to mean change over time, then no-one doubts evolution occurs. Natural selection can be observed and truly occurs, creating modifications to organisms, but this does not mean change from one species into another.

Yes, I think you are referring to the distinction between micro and macro-evolution. As I understand the issue, micro-evolution refers to changes within a species. Examples include height, skin tones, and the use (or lack thereof) of wisdom teeth. Macro-evolution is a whole different ballgame. It contemplates a lateral move from one species to another over time (somehow).

That form of evolution has not been observed but evolutionists often claim that the evidence for natural selection proves it is the origin of all species.

Natural selection accounts for adaptations by selecting from preexisting genetic information. In other words, "natural selection" does not equate to "natural generation".

The biggest thing any origin theory has to account for is the existence of information in nature, specifically the information encoded in DNA. The function of DNA in the cell is the same as that of software in a computer system, only many, many times greater than any information processing system any human has ever devised. Each feature of an organism, like a wing or an eye or whatever, needs information to describe it's structure, function, development, even its eventual decay is programmed in somehow. So where does all this information come from? Do mutations create information? This has never been observed. There is no materialist theory that can account for all this information. Information exists independent of it's medium, it's not a function or outcome of any natural law or process. In human experience, information is generated only by intelligence, so it is more logical to believe the universe originated by an intelligence rather than by a materialistic process.

I think you raise good points and observations. Personally, I can't fathom so many organs (within a given animal) that each require the existence of the other (in order to survive) just somehow coming into being at the same time, with only matter, time, and chance to explain it. The heart, brain, skin, lungs, kidneys, liver, bones etc. all must have come into existence at the same time. It's not like they could randomly and independently wait around for one another to sort of come along and join up. That said, I readily admit that my inability to fathom is not evidence of anything.

Here I'm really making he same point as Flabbergasted. Mutations and crossbreeding with natural selection may lead to changes, but it's just the re-arrangement of whats already there. It doesn't create any new information or features, it just modifies existing traits. Any account of origins has to explain an enormous amount of meaningful information that exists separately from its medium. There is no sufficient material explanation, and so far, from everything we do know about nature, there never will be.

I don't really disagree with you here.

My fear on this topic (as it relates to CF) is that it will cause the Forum to devolve into arguments about things that we can't really know. On the other hand, I do think there are stories with fabricated "evidence" for "evolution" (or more accurately, macro-evolution) that can relate to media Fakery, and would thus be appropriate to discuss here.

And that is where I am happy to leave it to the Mods to decide just how to strike that particular balance. I have no dog (or monkey) in this hunt.

I am really impressed with the logical arguments on all sides of this discussion, and I think we can agree just having this thread may already be better than the quips and insults thrown in other debates on the Internet; we should strive for that. I think at worst we could monkey the debates that are already raging in science (especially where mainstream media will be eager to tell us it is rather "solved" through programs on History Channel and other extremely heavy propaganda vehicles) but at best we could achieve what SacredCowSlayer suggests and focus on the media fakery angle of how the National Geographic society and others have manipulated society's understanding of the data. Perhaps we may even find falsified or otherwise questionable data.

I came across his theory too, and I am convinced by it. I held several misconceptions about hybrid animals that kept me from considering the possibility. I thought to produce a hybrid two animals needed the same number of chromosomes, which it turns out that is wrong. And I thought hybrids were 100% infertile, which also turns out to be wrong. Hybrids are less fertile, but often can successfully breed with one of the parent species, which is very different than being 100% infertile.

If a child saw a platypus, the child would say hey it is an otter-duck. The well educated parents would quickly correct the child that no that is not possible(they were taught that members of different species cannot breed and produce viable offspring), so they inform the child that the platypus must have independently evolved traits shared with otters and ducks. But the child I now believe would be right.

There is a big lesson here for us people curious to learn about the world, no matter how crazy the truth is. A few misconceptions taught to us early can keep us from thinking down very fruitful lines of enquiry. To know more we have to go back and challenge our most basic assumptions, only when we have reviewed and confirmed the basic assumptions we have been taught, can we build upon those assumptions with confidence.

Interesting subject. The reason I brought up the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis in the engineered disease thread is because it makes sense to me from a nutritional perspective. If we have an aquatic past, then it’s likely that animal fat and seafood should be a part of a diet that keeps us healthy.

I haven’t looked much into the evolution controversy and Darwin, but I suspect this area has been twisted in a masonic way. When we hear the word evolution today, we probably see a picture of Darwin trying to convince a bunch of stiff traditional scientists that man was not created by God in his present form, but that we have gradually evolved from primates. But that may not be what the controversy was about, if there ever was one.

It seems a typical masonic tactic is to deliberately promote a lie or half-truth that is compelling to people outside a scientific field, but preposterous to the people within it. This makes the non masonic scientists to either leave the scene out of frustration, or to get occupied with trying to educate their colleagues promoting the lie, seeing it as an honest mistake. And then you portray the scientists opposing the lie as reactionary and destroy their good name. Divide and conquer.

And this may have been the case with Darwin. I have seen from other posts and sources that Darwin was a freemason and the compelling lie used to divide and gain control could have been his promotion of a close evolutionary relationship between man and ape.

To an outside observer it looks reasonable. Apes walk upright and have hands and fingers just like us. But it may have been absurd to suggest this to the scientists of the time. Apes have no opposing thumbs, no subcutaneous fat, they cannot consciously control their breathing, they have small brains etc. Of course there is a distant relationship as between all mammals, but to suggest that man, the chimpanzee and gorilla had a recent common ancestor may have created exactly the controversy and chaos the freemasons needed to gain control.

It doesn’t seem plausible to me that evolution in the general sense would be controversial among scientists at the time. The theory was suggested long before Darwin and it’s common sense that more advanced life forms have evolved from simpler ones.

I also think this bears similarity with the masonic flat earth campaign. They have made it look like the shape of the earth has been an area of dispute, when in fact it has been an established fact since early civilization. As I understand it, no scientists argued about the shape, but perhaps the masonic ones, in the days of Kepler, Copernicus and Galilei. It was geocentrism that was under scrutiny.

Interesting to see truth seekers reject evolution only to then look for an alternative way to turn an ape into a man.

Extremely successful psyop, 10 out of 10. This shows that evolution is, in part, a means to promote materialism and works very well.

Think it through guys, its never going to work. Ape into man is just as magical as big bang universe from nothing. Its a replacement for supernatural reality and has to be absurd because it is trying to explain away miracles.